June 22, 2010

You, my dear gentle readers who love real women, deserve a well-written and lively post gleefully ripping the transgendered ideology to shreds because as we all know, non-logic is perennially annoying. Instead, you’re going to get a post, which briefly and succinctly highlights a major inconsistency with transgenderism. The weirdness, summarized below, starts here, but really, you can usually see examples in any trans discussion. What am I talking about? This:

Transpeople continually chant that any objection to transgenderism is the same as a demand for them to validate their very existence.

You could stop there and skip to the end, because hopefully the reframing is clear, but in case it’s not:

Any objection = Denial of their existence

Well, I for one am pretty sure they exist, if only because they tend to inhale and exhale at fairly frequent intervals. It isn’t their existence which is in doubt, but strategy-wise, it’s beneficial for them to continually refocus attention away from their various inconsistencies and towards some sleight of hand poppycock while overly dramatizing their feelings. They embody, pardon moi’s crudeness, the worst stereotypes ever of hysterical effeminate dandies. They are literally acting out a caricature of something which exists only in their imaginations, because not even effeminate dandies (if any actually existed) are that fucking hysterical.

It bears mentioning that if real women were to behave in such an exaggerated fashion, doctors would immediately diagnose us with insanity, following the pattern of centuries. When men do it, however:

No one is allowed to question their authoritarian privilege.

They claim that any objections to transgenderism or any nagging requests that they clarify their own inconsistencies, are merely impertinent impositions on their valuable time and energy, and of course, an insult to their existence.

I’m not sure where they found that special snowflake exemption clause in all their “How To Pass As a Woman” manuals, because real women must validate our existence merely as a cheap party-trick prerequisite to the main course: validating our humanity. Validating our humanity, and especially validating our neutrality — by that I mean constantly reaffirming that our status is non-whore and non-madonna — are two tasks which occupies the vast majority of a feminist’s time and energy. Validating our entitlement to civil rights, usually comes dead last. As far as I can tell, the evolutionary psychology field’s entire purpose is to invalidate our neutrality, rendering us either evil incarnate or self-sacrificing berry pickers on a pedestal; while the primary purpose of religion appears to concern itself with nullifying our humanity by regulating us to the babyfactory-helpmeet class. Academic feminists spend their entire professional careers painstakingly refuting one misogynist claim after another which insist we are nothing but objects to be consumed. Yet for all that, even we don’t run around screaming that every misogynist query is an assault on our existence.

One can only surmise that transidiots feel extremely threatened to the point of paranoia by anyone who notices or questions even minor inconsistencies.

Which is quite a peculiar stance for a supposedly mentally stable individual, but there’s more; and if you as a transperson take away nothing else after reading this missive, remember this for it is my main point: Whenever any one person or group posits some assertion and expects other people to act upon their assertion, then the onus is indeed upon them to provide sufficient evidence. Only a freaking loony tunes manipulative nutcase would change the subject. Only a chauvinistic asshole would assume he is somehow magically exempt.

April 6, 2010

After hearing so many blame-the-victim rape prevention “tips” I was afraid to watch these, even if someone as perceptive as Marcella posted them first. Fear not, these are AWESOME!

Tip#1: Clearly state your needs and desires.

Tip#2: Use the Buddy System.

Tip#3: Call for help

Marcella didn’t post the third one, and I’m taking a guess as to why she didn’t. The third video misses the mark just a tad and yet an obvious reason for it’s lack doesn’t leap out at me. Perhaps you can figure it out. The concept itself when written appears to get the point across effectively, so I’m wondering why the visual interpretation seems to be missing something. Or maybe it’s just me.

Is it that the first two were so perfect, or is it that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim and the focus on stranger rapes always seems to me to be an excuse not to focus on the most common type of perpetrator? You know, that really cute guy down the hall who is so sweet and innocent and admires your personality? I think I liked the first one so much because it was clear that the two people were on a date, which was going rather well for both of them, right up until PsychoMan makes his move. The second video clearly showed the psychopath’s premeditative intent and also the strategy he was using.

From a guy’s perspective, one who isn’t utilizing rape as a get-to-know-you technique, those first two videos are likely to make him realize what feminists have been trying to tell him all along — that no he doesn’t do any of that crap. Seems like it would defuse some defensiveness, which would then allow the genuinely nice guy (all five of them) to see rape from a female’s perspective instead of being caught in the endless loop of defensiveness-excuse-blindness. From a woman’s perspective, those first two are likely to make her focus on the nice “trustworthy” guy, whom I loathe.

Anyway, these are AWESOME, and are created by the utterly fabulous folks at the sexual violence center — that link leads directly to their stats page, which is helpful to have handy all in one place. I’m posting this to encourage them to make MOAR.

February 16, 2010

Just a quick note to explain why I’m refining my strategy in regards to transgenderism, and to offer it up for consideration to other radical feminists. As always, your opinions, thoughts, and suggestions are very welcome.

Normally, we usually only speak in terms of the male-to-female transpersons, with the female-to-male added as barely an afterthought. Many reasons for this, I’m sure. Mine is primarily that including the ftm renders each sentence too wordy and also that the ftm are not aggressively pushing the trans agenda like their counterparts. Many radical feminists believe, in addition, that some of the dynamics are not exactly the same (I agree with this assessment).

But from now on, I will refer mostly to the perspective of a normal woman whenever possible, in spite of the fact that my main purpose is still to deconstruct mtf. What on earth could be advantageous to such a strategy? It’s simple, I’m narrowing my target — or more specifically, refining my word choices to better address and effect change in, my real target. I asked myself: who is the only group actively fighting for the acceptance of transgenderism, and who is guilt-tripping the rest of their group into compliance? The answer is: 3nd wave vanilla girls (and boys) who display a profound misunderstanding of basic feminism. Consider the effect on her when she reads something like this: Read the rest of this entry »

February 14, 2010

It’s the day to honor love in all it’s ubiquitous cupidity, and I wanted to give all five of my readers a chuckle. Unfortunately, this is like the third year in a row that I’ve failed to write a certain post delineating in great detail all the myriad ways men suck at love, so this one which I’ve dug out of storage will have to do. Which is no small offering in itself, as the subject matter is only THE HOLY GRAIL FOR FEMINAZIS, and, if there was any doubt proves yet again my utter awesomeness I should have posted this months ago. First, a minor quibble:

For all of recorded history men have been formally inferioritizing females through a variety of government and religious sanctioned institutions. I want to briefly stress that before moving on to the argument which concerns us today. Political systems, religious systems, socio-economic systems have all worked in concert with the express purpose of keeping women in their place as subserviant slutmachines and baby factories. Contrary to popular belief this was not an accident, the words used to institutionalize oppression were planned with deliberation, as were those concepts discussed with the utmost consideration before culminating in action.

Evo-pysch babble, religious dogma, and mainstream proproganda — all spewed by men who to this day claim to comprehend the angelic humanity of females when they aren’t raping us for being whores — and feminists have kindly and painstakingly refuted every one. It also needs emphasing that the vast majority of women’s liberation has been the result of radical feminists backing men into the figurative corner whereby men had no other legitimate option than to 1.) acknowledge some bit of sexism as actual sexism, and 2.) shape the fuck up.

Today a feminazi turns the tables but this time provides irrefutable evidence that males as a class aren’t human. I love making logic do parlour tricks, even more so when those arguments are valid, indefensible, and have drastic consequences. Our argument begins with the definition of humane, which I have no doubt Mr. Webster, if he were alive, would immediately change to something less incriminating.

In order to distinguish those who are fully fledged members of humanity from those who are merely homo sapien, we must remember thathumanity is a term bestowed only upon those who express humane qualities — specifically compassion is mentioned most often. And since we can’t say that subjegating those one claims to love is compassionate, we also can’t say that men as a class are humane. And alas, therefore we can’t say that men as a class are fully fledged members of humanity.

November 7, 2009

I wrote a post this morning in twenty minutes. It’s quite nice, and well worth a read. Except it’s rooooooood as hell. Not really sure how it’s even possible to explain to someone why they are being a total idiot, without using the actual words.

“Pardon me John, but you have shit encrusted toilet paper stuck on your head”. Is there any tactful way to say that? Suppose one could direct John to a mirror and let him figure it out. But suppose John looks in the mirror, sees shit encrusted toilet paper perched on his noggin, and thinks that’s the latest fashion? If he was capable of finding poo-poo chapeau in his closet, wouldn’t he have already taken pains to remove it himself? Read the rest of this entry »

November 7, 2009

“In the late 1950s, psychologist Robert Jay Lifton studied former prisoners of war interred at Korean and Chinese camps. He determined that they’d undergone a multistep process that began with attacks on the prisoner’s sense of self and ended with what appeared to be a change in beliefs. Lifton ultimately defined a set of steps involved in the brainwashing cases he studied:

Assault on identity

Guilt

Self-betrayal

Breaking point

Leniency

Compulsion to confess

Channeling of guilt

Releasing of guilt

Progress and harmony”

That’s the beginning of this post and while originally intended only to make a larger point, it quickly turned into trigger material as it became obvious just how perfectly the life experience of the average female aligns with standard brainwashing techniques — techniques which are normally only used in a war zone against an enemy.

Considering that most of this post is simply reproduced from here, with equivalent substitutions, it shouldn’t have taken long to create. But it is with an ever increasing sense of horror that each replacement phrase was selected. Some of my revulsion is surely the accumulation of hearing about so many boys and men committing various terrible crimes lately — and notice how I left women completely out of that sentence! — but part is simple frustration. This world is sick, and no one wants to admit the extent of it’s malaise.

November 2, 2009

I’m tempted to say that I’d like to take this blog in a new direction. I’m tempted to wax eloquently (or at least reduntantly) about the person or two who has inspired me. I’m tempted to ask you, the person reading this, to come along for the ride.

Except I’m afraid that the journey won’t be all that long, that I may regress into old habits, that this time I’ll be biting off more than I can chew and will offend even more people than I did last time. Funny how fear gets in the way. And then too I’m a perfectionist feminazi and only those similarily afflicted have any inkling of the amount of anguish suffered each and every time a post is something less than perfect I have to breath this rotten feminaziphobic air.

Hello, my name is m Andrea and I suck almost as badly as I spew. I’m like the hoover of evil. Anyway, NEW REQUEST: I have a tendency to engage in snottery when confronted by the stupid and I’m trying to develope more patience; so please don’t tempt me by being non-logical or using up all the tissues. Think of sleepy kitties and try not to shout. Thank you.